Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government
Code of 1991, aims to transform local government units into self-reliant
communities and active partners of the national government in the attainment of
effective services to the people.As a
result of the devolution of concerned personnel from the national government to
the various local government units pursuant to the same Code, the interest of
the service demands that their working relations with the local employees
should be harmonious.

This is a petition for review on certiorari[1]
assailing the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals dated February 14, 1996 and its Resolution dated
December 9, 1998 in CA-G.R. SP No. 55052, Carolina
M. Cassion, et al. vs. Civil Service Commission, et al.

Before the passage of Republic Act No. 7160, the task of
delivering basic social services was dispensed by the national government
through the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Upon the
promulgation and implementation of the Local Government Code, some of the
functions of the DSWD were transferred to the local government units.

The City of Butuan, through its Sangguniang Panglungsod (Sanggunian) passed SP Resolution 427-92,[3]
entitled Resolution Authorizing the City Mayor, Honorable Democrito D. Plaza
II, to Sign the Memorandum of Agreement for the Devolution of the DSWD to the
City of Butuan.

Pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)[4]
entered into between the City of Butuan,
through then Mayor Democrito Plaza II, petitioner, and the DSWD, the latters services,
personnel, assets and liabilities, and technical support systems were
transferred to its city counterpart.

By virtue of the same MOA, MayorPlaza issued Executive Order (EO) No.
06-92[5]
dated October 5, 1992
reconstituting the City Social Services Development Office (CSSDO), devolving
or adding thereto 19 national DSWD employees headed by petitioner Virginia
Tuazon, Social Welfare OfficerV.MayorPlaza designated her Officer-in-Charge
of the reconstituted CSSDO.Its office was
transferred from the original CSSDO building to the DSWD building.

The CSSDO was originally composed of herein respondents, headed
by Carolina M.
Cassion, Social Welfare Officer IV. Aggrieved by such development, they refused
to recognize petitioner Tuazon as their new head and to report at the DSWD
building.They contended that the
issuance of EO No. 06-92 by MayorPlaza and the designation
of petitioner Tuazon as Officer-in-charge of the CSSDO are illegal.

Despite MayorPlazas series of orders
to respondents to report for work at the DSWD building, they failed to do so.

On January 18,
1993, MayorPlaza issued a memorandum
to the City Legal Officer directing him to conduct an administrative
investigation against respondents.They
then submitted their respective explanations.Thereafter, they were charged administratively for grave misconduct and
insubordination and were preventively suspended for 60 days.This prompted them to file with the Civil
Service Regional Office No. 10 a complaint against MayorPlaza
for violation of the Civil Service Law.However, their complaint was dismissed for lack of merit.

Upon expiration of their preventive suspension, respondents
informed MayorPlaza that they are willing to return to
work, but to their old office, not to the DSWD building.

For the last time, or on April 14, 1993, MayorPlaza notified
respondents to report to petitioner Tuazon at the new office in the DSWD
building, but they remained obstinate.

On February 9,
1994, MayorPlaza inquired from the
Civil Service Commission (CSC) on what appropriate action could be taken
against respondents for their continued refusal to report for work since April
1993.In turn, the CSC, through Atty. Lorea, Director II, informed the Mayor
that respondents could be dropped from the rolls pursuant to CSC Memorandum
Circular No. 38, Series of 1993.

On February
16, 1994, MayorPlaza issued an Order
dropping respondents from the rolls pursuant to the said CSC Memorandum
Circular.

Forthwith, respondents appealed to the CSC.

On August 22,
1994, the CSC issued Resolution Nos. 94-4626 and 94-6243 dismissing
respondents appeal.In affirming MayorPlazas
Order dropping respondents from the rolls, the CSC held:

Officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30)
days without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Official Leave
(AWOL) and may be dropped from the service without prior notice.

A notice or order of the dropping from the rolls of an employee
shall be issued by the appointing authority and submitted to the CSC Office
concerned for record purposes.

Based on the above-quoted provision, it is undeniable that the
appointing authority has the legal right to drop from the rolls a civil service
officer or employee.Nowhere in the quoted
provision is it stated that only the Commission has the exclusive authority to
drop from the rolls civil service officers or employees.Hence, contrary to the first contention of
the appellants, MayorPlaza acted in conformity
with the law when he ordered the dropping from the rolls of herein
appellants.The records of the case show
the fact that appellants did not report for work from April 1993 up to the time
they were dropped from the rolls.Although they manifested intention to return to work upon expiration of
their preventive suspension, still they adamantly insisted that they would
report only in their old office and not in the new one created by Executive
Order No. 06-92.The legal excuse being
given by the appellants is highly untenable.The Executive Order issued by the Mayor is presumed valid until annulled
by the proper authorities.The same
presumption shall also apply insofar as the designation of Mrs. Tuazon as OIC
is concerned.The proper course of
action for the appellants is to comply with the Mayors directives and then
challenge the questioned Executive Order before the proper forum, otherwise,
the appellants should suffer the consequence of their acts.

We find without merit the contention of the appellants that they
were denied due process for lack of notice and opportunity to be heard before
they were dropped from the rolls.The
separation of an employee who is dropped from the rolls is a non-disciplinary
action wherein the respondent is entitled to notice and hearing.In the above-quoted provision, an officer or
employee may be dropped from the rolls if he was continuously absent without
official leave for a period of at least thirty days.Prior notice is not necessary.

As to the last contention of the appellants that it was really the
intention of the mayor to systematically remove them, the Commission likewise
finds it without merit.No evidence was
submitted by the appellants to support such contention.

Respondents then filed with the Court of Appeals a petition for
review.

On February 14, 1996, the Appellate Court rendered its Decision
setting aside the assailed CSC Resolutions and EO No. 06-92 issued by Mayor
Plaza and reinstating respondents to their former positions without loss of
seniority rights and emoluments with full back wages and other benefits
corresponding to the period from January 1993 up to actual reinstatement.Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
but was denied.

The Court of Appeals ratiocinated as follows:

The fundamental rule of due process, on the other hand, requires
that a person be accorded notice and opportunity to be heard (Rebuena v. Civil
Service Commission, G.R. No. 115942, 31 May 1995; Klaveness Maritime Agency,
Inc. v. Palmos, 232 SCRA 448 [1994]).Ample opportunity contemplated by law connotes every kind of
assistance which must be accorded to the employee to enable him to prepare
adequately for his defense including legal representation (Segismundo v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 112203, 13 December 1994, 329 SCRA 167, citing Abiera v. NLRC, 215
SCRA 476 [1992]).Non-compliance with
the twin requirements of notice and hearing is fatal because these requirements
are conditions sine qua non before a dismissal may be validly effected
(Maneho v. NLRC, 229 SCRA 240 [1994], citing Tiu v. NLRC, 215 SCRA 540
[1992]).In fact, notice and hearing
must be accorded an employee even though the employee does not affirmatively
demand it (Century Textile Mills v. NLRC, 161 SCRA 528 [1988]).

A circumspect scrutiny of the record leaves Us unconvinced that petitioners
were accorded this opportunity to be heard when they sought relief before
respondent CSCs Regional Office No. X which dismissed their complaint,
docketed as ADM. Case No. ND 93-023, against respondentsCity
Mayor and Virginia V. Tuazon for violation of the Civil Service Law and its
implementing rules and regulations. x x x

x x x

As regards the validity of the issuance of E.O. No. 06-92, there
can be no dispute over the power of the government to reorganize, whether
traditional, progressive or whatever adjective is appended to it.However, the essence of constitutional
government is adherence to basic rules.The rule of law requires that no government official should feel free to
do as he pleases using only his avowedly sincere intentions and conscience to
guide him.The fundamental standards of
fairness embodied in the bona fide rule can not be disregarded (Mendoza v. Quisumbing, 186
SCRA 108 [1990]; see also Romualdez-Yap v. CSC, 225 SSCRA 285 [1993].

In the main, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred
in setting aside the CSC Resolutions dropping respondents from the rolls and EO
No. 06-92 directing the devolution of 19 national DSWD employees to the local
or city DSWD to be headed by petitioner Virginia Tuazon.

Private respondents, on the other hand, aver that their refusal
to report for work is justified since EO
No. 06-92 is not valid as it was issued without prior approval by the Sanggunian in violation of Article 164,
Rule XXII of the Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code.

Section 17 of the Local Government Code authorizes the devolution
of personnel, assets and liabilities, records of basic services, and facilities
of a national government agency to local government units.Under this Code, the term devolution refers
to the act by which the national government confers power and authority upon
the various local government units to perform specific functions and
responsibilities.

As a consequence of the devolution of national agencies,
Executive Order No. 503 was enacted by then President Corazon C. Aquino to
govern and ensure the efficient transfer of responsibilities to the local government
unit concerned.Section 2 (g) provides:

The local chief executive shall be responsible for all devolved
functions.He may delegate such powers
and functions to his duly authorized representative whose position shall
preferably not be lower than the rank of a local government department head.In all cases of delegated authority, the
local chief executive shall at all times observe the principle of command
responsibility.

Section 2 (a) states that:

Except as herein otherwise provided, devolved permanent personnel
shall be automatically reappointed by the local chief executive concerned
immediately upon their transfer which shall not go beyond June 30, 1992.

The positions absorbed by the local government units from the
national government agencies shall be automatically created upon transfer of
their corresponding budgetary allocation.

Devolved permanent personnel shall be automatically reappointed by
the local chief executive concerned immediately upon their transfer.

However, pending the completion of the new organizational
structure and staffing pattern, the local government executives may assign
devolved personnel to divisions/sections/units where their qualifications are
best suited or appropriate.

It is thus clear that MayorPlaza is empowered to
issue EO No. 06-92 in order to give effect to the devolution decreed by the
Local Government Code.As the local
chief executive of ButuanCity, MayorPlaza has the authority
to reappoint devolved personnel and may designate an employee to take charge of
a department until the appointment of a regular head, as was done by the Mayor
here.

CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1992, provides further
that heads of departments appointed by the local chief executive must have the
concurrence of the majority of all the members of the Sanggunian concerned.While
initially, the Sanggunian rejected
petitioner Tuazons appointment as the City Government Department Head II of
the CSSDO, however, it later confirmed her appointment.

The Court Appeals erred in ruling that EO No. 06-92 violated
respondents security of tenure as they were transferred to another office
without their consent.There was no such
transfer.Transfer is a movement from
one position to another which is of equivalent rank, level or salary without
break in service and may be imposed as an administrative penalty.[6]
The change of respondents place of work from the original CSSDO office to the
DSWD building is not a transfer.It
was only a physical transfer of their office to a new one done in the interest
of public service.There were no new
movements or appointments from one position to another.

Private respondents argue that they were denied due process when
they were dropped from the rolls.

CSC Memorandum Circular No. 38, Series of 1993, provides:

VI. Requirements For Certain Mode of Separation.

Dropping from the Rolls Non-disciplinary
in nature, executory but appealable to the CSC office concerned within fifteen
(15) days from receipt of the order or notice.

Officers and employees who are absent for at least thirty (30) days
without approved leave are considered on Absence Without Leave (AWOL) and may
be dropped from the service without prior notice.

A notice or order of the dropping from the rolls of an employee
shall be issued by the appointing authority and submitted to the CSC office
concerned for record purposes.

Pursuant to the above provisions and as ruled by the CSC, the dropping
from the rolls of private respondents is not disciplinary in nature.Thus, their assertion that they were denied
due process is untenable.Since the
dropping from the rolls is not an administrative sanction, they need not be
notified or be heard.

WHEREFORE, the
Decision dated February 14,
1996 of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED.The CSC Resolution No. 94-4626 dated August 22, 1994, and
Resolution No. 94-6243 dated November
17, 1994 dropping private respondents from the rolls are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, (Chairman), and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.

Corona,
J., on leave.

[1]
Pursuant to Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended.

[2]
Penned by Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (now a member of this
Court), with Associate Justices Arturo B. Buena, now a retired member also of
this Court, and Ruben T. Reyes, concurring.